Hartsoe v. Doyle et al

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 in full. Complaint 2 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. Motion for an evidentiary hearing 10 DENIED. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 5/5/2015. Mailed to Hartsoe. (TAG, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
HELENA DIVISION

FILED
MAY 0 5 2015
Clerk Us 0- .
District Of ~tnct Court

ontana
M.
issoula

CV 14-63-H-DLC-JTJ

JOHNL. HARTSOE,
Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

JAY DOYLE, DEBRA CHRISTOPHER,
MIKE MCGRATH, ED MCLEAN,
VICOTR VALGENTI, BLAIR JONES,
JOHN MURPHY, SUE SCHLEIF, JOE
HOWARD, LOREN TUCKER, LEO
GALLAGER, TIM FOX, JUSTICE JIM
RICE,
Defendants.
United States Magistrate Judge John T. Johntson entered his Findings and
Recommendation on January 23, 2015 recommending that Hartsoe's Complaint be
dismissed and that his in forma pauperis status be revoked for the purpose of
appeal. Hartsoe timely objected to the Findings and Recommendation and so the
Court will conduct de nova review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). The
portions of the findings and recommendations not specifically objected to will be
reviewed for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach.,
Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error exists if the Court is left

with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United
1

States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000). Since the parties are familiar

with the facts of this case, they will only be repeated below as necessary to explain
the Court's order. For the reasons listed below, the Court adopts Judge Johnston's
Findings and Recommendation in full.
Judge Johnston found that Judges Christopher and Tucker are clearly
entitled to judicial immunity. Hartsoe objects to this finding, alleging that Judge
Christopher is guilty of perjury, and other illegal acts. It appears Hartsoe's
objection stems from an instance where Judge Christopher found Hartsoe in
contempt of court. This was well within Judge Christopher's official duties and
Hartsoe has failed to show that Judge Christopher or Judge Tucker acted outside
their judicial capacity or in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.
Hartsoe next objects to the remainder of Judge Johnston's findings, alleging
that the named Defendants are involved in a cover-up of Judge Christopher's
alleged criminal acts. Joe Howard, Hartsoe's court-appointed attorney, was not a
state actor and therefore cannot be subject to a section 1983 claim. Polk v.
Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). Hartsoe has failed to establish an actual

connection or link between the actions of the remaining Defendants and his
alleged deprivation. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658
( 1978). Hartsoe' s objections restate his dissatisfaction with Defendants' responses
2

to his myriad complaints against Judge Christopher, but wholly fail to constitute a
constitutional claim.
Last, Hartsoe requests an evidentiary hearing related to his allegation of
perjury against Judge Christopher and the remaining Defendants' concealment of
the alleged illegal acts. Hartsoe has failed to name a proper defendant, and further
failed to state a claim for relief. An evidentiary hearing is not warranted.
There being no clear error in Judge Johnston's remaining Findings and
Recommendation,
IT IS ORDERED that Judge Johnston's Findings and Recommendation
(Doc. 8) are ADOPTED IN FULL. Hartsoe's Complaint (Doc. 2) is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall close this matter
and enter judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the docket shall reflect that the Court
certifies pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(3)(A) that any appeal of this decision
would not be taken in good faith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hartsoe's motion for an evidentiary
hearing (Doc. 10) is DENIED.

3

.-.t-h

DATED this ":>

day of May, 20

.

Dana L. Christensen, Chief J dge
United States District Court

4